pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.04311 · v4 · submitted 2026-02-04 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Analysis of the semileptonic decays Sigma_btoSigma_clbar{ν}_l, Xi'_btoXi'_clbar{ν}_l and Ω_btoΩ_clbar{ν}_l in QCD sum rules

Jie Lu , Guo-Liang Yu , Dian-Yong Chen , Zhi-Gang Wang , Bin Wu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 07:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords semileptonic decaysQCD sum rulesbaryon transitionsform factorsSU(3) symmetrybranching ratioslepton universality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Three-point QCD sum rules calculations indicate that the semileptonic decay widths for Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c and Ω_b→Ω_c approximately satisfy SU(3) flavor symmetry.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper computes the transition form factors for semileptonic decays of bottom baryons to charm baryons using three-point QCD sum rules. On the QCD side, both the perturbative contribution and vacuum condensates up to dimension 8 are included to improve the accuracy of the operator product expansion. On the phenomenological side, all possible couplings are considered and Dirac structure dependence is removed. The form factors are then used to calculate the partial widths, which approximately obey SU(3) flavor symmetry, as well as branching ratios for the Ω_b decay, lepton universality ratios, and asymmetry parameters. These results are intended as references for future theoretical and experimental work on heavy flavor baryon weak decays.

Core claim

The electroweak transition form factors of Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c and Ω_b→Ω_c are analyzed within the framework of three-point QCD sum rules. In the phenomenological side, all possible couplings of interpolating current to hadronic states are considered, and the Dirac structure dependence on the form factors is systematically eliminated. In the QCD side, the calculation incorporates both the perturbative part and the contributions from vacuum condensates up to dimension 8. Using the obtained form factors, the partial widths of semileptonic decays Σ_b→Σ_c l ν̄_l, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c l ν̄_l and Ω_b→Ω_c l ν̄_l are studied, showing approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry, with branching ratios for Ω_b→Ω_c l ν̄_l l

What carries the argument

Three-point QCD sum rules matching phenomenological hadronic couplings to QCD operator product expansion up to dimension eight for baryon transition form factors.

If this is right

  • Decay widths approximately satisfy SU(3) flavor symmetry.
  • Branching ratios for Ω_b→Ω_c l ν̄_l are provided for comparison.
  • Lepton universality ratios are analyzed for new physics studies.
  • Asymmetry parameters are calculated for the decay processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These predictions can be tested against future experimental data from heavy flavor factories.
  • Deviations in the universality ratios could suggest new physics contributions.
  • The same method may be extended to other semileptonic or nonleptonic decays of heavy baryons.
  • Consistency checks with lattice QCD simulations would be valuable for validating the dimension-8 truncation.

Load-bearing premise

The operator product expansion up to dimension 8 sufficiently captures the relevant QCD dynamics without needing higher terms for convergence.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Ω_b→Ω_c e ν branching ratio that differs substantially from the QCD sum rules prediction would falsify the computed form factors and widths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04311 by Bin Wu, Dian-Yong Chen, Guo-Liang Yu, Jie Lu, Zhi-Gang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The Feynman diagram for semileptonic decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The Feynman diagrams for the perturbative part and vacuum condensate terms in quark level, where the blue, red, green and black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The pole contributions (a) and the contributions of perturba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a), we observe that when s0 takes its upper or lower bound, the Borel parameter should be adjusted accordingly so that the pole contribution satisfies Poles ≈ 40%. In other words, the upper and lower bounds of the Borel platform are used to determine the form factor values when s0 is set to its upper and lower bounds, respectively. The determination of the uncertainty from u0 follows a similar procedure. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The fitting results of vector (a-c) and axial vector (d-f) form factors for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: It is the same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: It is the same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The total (red), longitudinal (blue), and transverse (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The contributions of the perturbative part and di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: It is the same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: It is the same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this article, the electroweak transition form factors of $\Sigma_b\to\Sigma_c$, $\Xi'_b\to\Xi'_c$ and $\Omega_b\to\Omega_c$ are analyzed within the framework of three-point QCD sum rules. In phenomenological side, all possible couplings of interpolating current to hadronic states are considered, and the Dirac structure dependence on the form factors is systematically eliminated. In QCD side, our calculation incorporates both the perturbative part and the contributions from vacuum condensates up to dimension 8. This systematic inclusion of higher-dimensional terms accounts for a broader set of Feynman diagrams, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the operator product expansion. Using the obtained form factors, we study the partial widths of semileptonic decays $\Sigma_b\to\Sigma_cl\bar{\nu}_l$, $\Xi'_b\to\Xi'_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ and $\Omega_b\to\Omega_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ ($l=e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$). The results indicate that these decay widths approximately satisfy SU(3) flavor symmetry. Next, we calculate the branching ratios for the decay process $\Omega_b\to\Omega_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ and compare them with the results from other collaborations. Furthermore, the lepton universality ratios and some asymmetry parameters of these decay processes are also analyzed, which provide information for the study of new physics. We hope that these results will serve as a useful reference for future theoretical and experimental studies of weak decays involving heavy flavor baryons.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the transition form factors for the semileptonic decays Σ_b → Σ_c l ν̄_l, Ξ'_b → Ξ'_c l ν̄_l and Ω_b → Ω_c l ν̄_l within three-point QCD sum rules. On the phenomenological side all possible interpolating-current couplings are retained and Dirac structures are projected out; on the QCD side the OPE includes the perturbative term plus vacuum condensates through dimension 8. The resulting form factors are used to evaluate the partial widths, which are reported to satisfy approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry. Branching ratios for Ω_b → Ω_c l ν̄_l are calculated and compared with other works; lepton-universality ratios and several asymmetry parameters are also presented.

Significance. If the extracted form factors are stable, the work supplies concrete predictions for branching fractions and a test of SU(3) breaking in heavy-baryon weak decays. These numbers can serve as benchmarks for lattice QCD and as targets for LHCb and Belle II measurements. The systematic treatment of all Dirac structures and the inclusion of dimension-8 operators are methodological strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (numerical analysis): The Borel windows M² and continuum thresholds s₀ are chosen separately for each channel to achieve stability, yet no table or figure quantifies the variation of the three decay widths (or their ratios) when M² and s₀ are shifted within the quoted ranges. Because the SU(3) equality is the central phenomenological claim, the absence of this sensitivity study leaves the result vulnerable to auxiliary-parameter dependence.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (OPE side): Although dimension-8 condensates are retained, the manuscript does not display the relative size of the dimension-6, -7 and -8 contributions evaluated at the working Borel mass for any channel. Without an explicit convergence check it is impossible to confirm that the higher-dimensional terms genuinely improve the reliability of the form-factor extraction.
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 (decay widths): The quoted uncertainties on the partial widths appear to reflect only the variation of input parameters (quark masses, condensates) and not the spread arising from the Borel and threshold choices. This underestimates the total theoretical error and weakens the comparison with other collaborations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the widths 'approximately satisfy SU(3) flavor symmetry' is not accompanied by the numerical ratios or the size of the breaking; a single sentence quoting the largest deviation would improve clarity.
  2. [§5] §5 (branching ratios): A few inconsistencies in the labeling of form factors (f₁ versus f1) appear between the text and the tables; uniform notation would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive suggestions. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated into the updated manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (numerical analysis): The Borel windows M² and continuum thresholds s₀ are chosen separately for each channel to achieve stability, yet no table or figure quantifies the variation of the three decay widths (or their ratios) when M² and s₀ are shifted within the quoted ranges. Because the SU(3) equality is the central phenomenological claim, the absence of this sensitivity study leaves the result vulnerable to auxiliary-parameter dependence.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important aspect of the analysis. The Borel windows and continuum thresholds were determined by requiring stability of the form factors and ensuring that the continuum contribution remains below 30% of the total. Within these windows, the form factors show only mild dependence on the auxiliary parameters, typically varying by less than 10%. Nevertheless, to provide a quantitative assessment of the sensitivity and to reinforce the reliability of the observed approximate SU(3) symmetry, we will add a new table in the revised version of section 4. This table will display the decay widths and their ratios for the central values as well as the upper and lower edges of the M² and s₀ ranges for each channel. We believe this addition will address the concern effectively. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (OPE side): Although dimension-8 condensates are retained, the manuscript does not display the relative size of the dimension-6, -7 and -8 contributions evaluated at the working Borel mass for any channel. Without an explicit convergence check it is impossible to confirm that the higher-dimensional terms genuinely improve the reliability of the form-factor extraction.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of the OPE convergence would strengthen the manuscript. In our calculation, the contributions from higher-dimensional operators are included to account for non-perturbative effects more comprehensively, and at the chosen Borel masses, these terms are numerically suppressed compared to lower-dimensional ones. To make this transparent, we will include a new table or figure in section 3.2 of the revised manuscript, showing the relative magnitudes of the dimension-6, dimension-7, and dimension-8 contributions to the form factors at the working Borel parameter for each decay channel. This will allow readers to verify the convergence of the expansion. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Table 2] Table 2 (decay widths): The quoted uncertainties on the partial widths appear to reflect only the variation of input parameters (quark masses, condensates) and not the spread arising from the Borel and threshold choices. This underestimates the total theoretical error and weakens the comparison with other collaborations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the error estimates in Table 2 currently account only for the uncertainties in the input parameters such as quark masses and condensates. The variations due to the Borel mass and continuum threshold, although small within the selected windows, should indeed be incorporated to provide a more conservative and complete theoretical uncertainty. In the revised manuscript, we will update Table 2 by including these auxiliary-parameter uncertainties, either by adding them in quadrature or by reporting them as separate contributions. This will result in slightly larger error bars but will make the comparison with other theoretical works more robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard QCD sum-rule extraction yields independent predictions for form factors and widths.

full rationale

The paper equates the phenomenological representation (with form factors) to the QCD OPE side (perturbative plus condensates up to dimension 8), applies Borel transformation, subtracts continuum, and extracts form factors after selecting M^2 and s0 for stability and OPE convergence. These auxiliary parameters are fixed by internal criteria (plateau behavior, condensate hierarchy) that do not incorporate the target decay widths or branching ratios. The computed widths, SU(3) pattern, and lepton-universality ratios are therefore genuine outputs of the sum rules rather than re-statements of the inputs. No self-citation chain, self-definitional loop, or fitted-parameter renaming is present in the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard QCD sum rules inputs whose numerical values are taken from prior literature and on stability criteria that are adjusted channel by channel.

free parameters (2)
  • Borel parameter
    Chosen to optimize stability of the sum rule between phenomenological and QCD sides
  • Continuum threshold
    Adjusted to reproduce the known masses of the initial and final baryons
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Operator product expansion remains valid when truncated at dimension 8
    Invoked to justify inclusion of all condensates through dimension 8 on the QCD side
  • standard math Vacuum condensate values are known and universal
    Standard inputs taken from earlier QCD sum rules literature

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1408 out tokens · 37895 ms · 2026-05-16T07:57:25.509387+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 21 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    αs(µ) αs(mc[b]) # 12 33−2N f , ms(µ)=m s(2GeV)

    are introduced to reduce the Borel parameters in this work. Then, using the quark-hadron duality condition, we can establish a series of linear equa- tions about twenty-four scalar invariant amplitudes in both phenomenological and QCD sides. Finally, all form factors in Eq. (15) can be uniquely determined by solving these twenty- four linear equations. In...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states $\Omega_b$, $\Omega_c$, $\Xi'_b$, $\Xi'_c$, $\Sigma_b$ and $\Sigma_c$ with QCD sum rules

    Z.-G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B685, 59 (2010), 0912.1648

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Analysis of the ${1/2^-}$ and ${3/2^-}$ heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules

    Z.-G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 81 (2011), 1003.2838

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Neishabouri and K

    Z. Neishabouri and K. Azizi, Phys. Rev. D112, 054009 (2025), 2503.12390

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Neishabouri, K

    Z. Neishabouri, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014010 (2024), 2404.12654

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Luo, S.-W

    X. Luo, S.-W. Zhang, H.-X. Chen, A. Hosaka, N. Su, and H.-M. Yang (2025), 2510.13013

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, D.-Y . Chen, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1382 (2025), 2508.11900

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Analysis of the semileptonic decays of $\Xi_{cc}$ and $\Omega_{cc}$ baryons in QCD sum rules

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J. Lu, B. Wu, P. Yang, and Z. Zhou (2026), 2601.06427

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Y .-M. Wang, M. J. Aslam, and C.-D. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C59, 847 (2009), 0810.0609

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    $\Lambda_b \to p, \Lambda$ transition form factors from QCD light-cone sum rules

    Y .-M. Wang, Y .-L. Shen, and C.-D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D80, 074012 (2009), 0907.4008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Form Factors and Strong Couplings of Heavy Baryons from QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules

    A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, T. Mannel, and Y . M. Wang, JHEP 09, 106 (2011), 1108.2971. 19 1 /s8722 /s48/s46/s490.00.10.20.30.40.50.6F1 (Q2 =1GeV2 ) Total Perturbative /s10216 g2 sGG /s10217 /s10216 qq /s102172 /s10216 qq /s10217/s10216 qg s /s963G q /s10217( a) /s8722 /s48/s46/s490.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7F2 (Q2 =1GeV2 ) Total Perturbative /s10216 g2 sGG /s...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Perturbative Corrections to $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda$ Form Factors from QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules

    Y .-M. Wang and Y .-L. Shen, JHEP02, 179 (2016), 1511.09036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, and M. Savcı, Phys. Rev. D93, 056007 (2016), 1603.04762

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D106, 074022 (2022), 2208.10365

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Shi and Z.-X

    Y .-J. Shi and Z.-X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D110, 096015 (2024), 2407.07431

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Luo, H.-X

    X. Luo, H.-X. Chen, E.-L. Cui, H.-M. Yang, D. Zhou, and Z.-Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 096028 (2025), 2506.08335

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 65 (2026), 2510.21409

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    1/M Corrections to Baryonic Form Factors in the Quark Model

    H.-Y . Cheng and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D53, 1457 (1996), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 1697 (1997)], hep-ph/9502391

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  20. [20]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, M. A. Pisarev, and A. G. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D61, 114010 (2000), hep- ph/9911425

    work page arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Weak Decays of Heavy Baryons in Light-Front Approach

    Z.-X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C42, 093101 (2018), 1803.02292

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-Y . Li, Z.-G. Wang, J. Lu, and M. Yan, Nucl. Phys. B990, 116183 (2023), 2206.08128

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y . Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J.-Z. Gu, J. Lu, and H.-T. Shen, Chin. Phys. C47, 073105 (2023), 2207.04167

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y . Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and J.-Z. Gu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1310 (2024), 2405.16162

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Zhang and Z.-X

    F.-W. Zhang and Z.-X. Zhao (2025), 2508.13648

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Patel and K

    K. Patel and K. Thakkar (2025), 2510.16529

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Q. P. Xu and A. N. Kamal, Phys. Rev. D47, 2849 (1993)

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    $\Omega_b$ semi-leptonic weak decays

    M.-k. Du and C. Liu, Phys. Rev. D84, 056007 (2011), 1107.2535

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Han and C

    C. Han and C. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B961, 115262 (2020), 2011.00473

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and A. G. Ruset- sky, Phys. Rev. D59, 074016 (1999), hep-ph/9809254

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    Sheng, J

    J.-H. Sheng, J. Zhu, X.-N. Li, Q.-Y . Hu, and R.-M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 055023 (2020), 2009.09594

    work page arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    G.-L. Yu, Y . Meng, Z.-Y . Li, Z.-G. Wang, and L. Jie, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38, 2350082 (2023), 2302.11758

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Wang, Y .-H

    W.-J. Wang, Y .-H. Zhou, L.-Y . Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D105, 074008 (2022), 2202.05426

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Zhou, W.-J

    Y .-H. Zhou, W.-J. Wang, L.-Y . Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D108, 094032 (2023), 2309.13906

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Y . Li, J. Chen, Y .-X. Wang, and Z.-T. Zou, Phys. Rev. D113, 013003 (2026), 2509.02257

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Neishabouri, K

    Z. Neishabouri, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh (2026), 2601.00657

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Amiri and K

    A. Amiri and K. Azizi, Nucl. Phys. B1022, 117281 (2026), 2510.20937

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Measurement of the shape of the $\Lambda_b^0\to\Lambda_c^+ \mu^- \overline{\nu}$ differential decay rate

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D96, 112005 (2017), 1709.01920

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), (2022), arXiv:2201.03497 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 191803 (2022), 2201.03497

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Heavy-to-light semileptonic decays of Lambda_b and Lambda_c baryons in the covariant confined quark model

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K ¨orner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D90, 114033 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 059902 (2016)], 1410.6043

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Zhao, R.-H

    Z.-X. Zhao, R.-H. Li, Y .-L. Shen, Y .-J. Shi, and Y .-S. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1181 (2020), 2010.07150

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Zhang, X.-N

    J. Zhang, X.-N. Jin, C.-W. Liu, and C.-Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033004 (2023), 2210.16825

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D98, 093006 (2018), 1810.03388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385 (1979)

    work page 1979

  45. [45]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 448 (1979)

    work page 1979

  46. [46]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, pp. 1495–1576 (2000), hep- ph/0010175

    work page arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Wang, Front

    Z.-G. Wang, Front. Phys. (Beijing)21, 016300 (2026), 2502.11351

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Y .-J. Shi, W. Wang, and Z.-X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 568 (2020), 1902.01092

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Zhao, X.-Y

    Z.-X. Zhao, X.-Y . Sun, F.-W. Zhang, Y .-P. Xing, and Y .-T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D108, 116008 (2023), 2103.09436

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Zhang and C.-F

    S.-Q. Zhang and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D108, 074017 (2023), 2307.05019

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B852, 138624 (2024), 2401.00669

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, 114037 (2025), 2501.15534

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, and Z.-G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B872, 140057 (2026), 2510.03757

    work page arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    M. E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, F. S. Navarra, and M. Nielsen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 1019 (2012), 1104.2864

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 907 (2023), 2308.06705

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and Z. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1061 (2025), 2506.23095

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Pascual and R

    P. Pascual and R. Tarrach,QCD: RENORMALIZATION FOR THE PRACTITIONER, vol. 194 (1984)

    work page 1984

  58. [58]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept.127, 1 (1985)

    work page 1985

  59. [59]

    R. E. Cutkosky, J. Math. Phys.1, 429 (1960)

    work page 1960

  60. [60]

    Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B693, 559 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 705, 544–544 (2011)], 1004.5333

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Gluon Condensates and m_{c,b} from QCD-Moments and their ratios to Order alpha_s^3 and <G^4>

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B706, 412 (2012), 1105.2922

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Gluon Condensates and m_b(m_b) from QCD-Exponential Moments at Higher Orders

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B707, 259 (2012), 1105.5070

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [63]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4603 (1995), hep-ph/9412324. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  64. [64]

    Li, Y .-S

    X.-J. Li, Y .-S. Li, F.-L. Wang, and X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1080 (2023), 2308.07206

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    D. Jido, N. Kodama, and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D54, 4532 (1996), hep-ph/9604280

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996